True enough but in this hypothetical situation apparently you are trying to fend off a SWAT officer on bath salts. At least that is what poker is leading us to believe5.7mm from a FN Five Seven would have done it. Same with 7.62x25 Tokarev from a $150 CZ-52.
Of course, a head shot would have done it regardless of caliber.
True enough but in this hypothetical situation apparently you are trying to fend off a SWAT officer on bath salts. At least that is what poker is leading us to believe
And the 110 countries which have higher murder rates than the US, most of whom have stricter gun laws also, can outlaw their citizens as well. Of course, if we want to look at history and really dial down the murder rate in the world, we can just outlaw atheists. They seem to have killed plenty of people.
But almost every single one of those countries is a third world country where lawlessness prevails. The US seems to be the only developed country that has such a high murder rate. And the figures are even more pronounced if you look at homicide by firearms: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateAnd the 110 countries which have higher murder rates than the US, most of whom have stricter gun laws also, can outlaw their citizens as well. Of course, if we want to look at history and really dial down the murder rate in the world, we can just outlaw atheists. They seem to have killed plenty of people.
Do you mean to suggest that none of those countries have laws against violent crime or murder? What about gun laws? Surely you are not suggesting that putting a law on the books does not necessarily mean that people will follow it?
Is Russia undeveloped these days? They have a murder rate which is twice that of the US.
This is a complete false flag. First of all, one of the main reasons that gun control advocates give for their positions is the potential for reduction of murder and other violent crime. That is not the case, but it is their argument nonetheless. If the only response to removing guns is a decrease in the rate of homicide by firearm but not a total decrease in murder rate, what was the point? Secondly, I seriously doubt the families and loved ones of those murdered are concerned whether the person they love is killed by being stabbed, strangled, run over by a car, or shot. They are just as dead the last time I checked.
You completely missed the point I was making. Nowhere did I mention anything about gun control - as I have said before on this forum many other countries have high gun ownership but their homicide rate is low. Though I notice that whilst dismissing the possibility that low gun ownership might account for low homicides (which is NOT what I was suggesting), you then allude the complete opposite by suggesting that high gun ownership is possibly some kind of deterent.
Actually, what I have repeatedly suggested is that there is little relationship between gun availability and violent crime, in particular murder. In the US, there seems to be a trend of decreasing crime as guns have become more available but, to be fair there was something of a trend in the late 1990ās when the assault weapons bad was in effect. This supports my position, as does looking at a place like Switzerland with a murder rate approx. 60% of the UK.
Iāll take a 50% decrease in murder rates in the past 20 years every time. I am hopeful that our current trend continues.
Switzerland is not a weak comparison at all. The argument used repeatedly by control advocates is that the availability of guns leads to increases in murder and other violent crime. Who owns the guns is irrelevant when they have access to them just the same. However, as you pointed out, Canada has high levels of gun ownership with less crime. This helps make the point that it is not access to guns which is the issue, but other factors instead.
Iām not arguing against your point, just saying that the Swiss comparison is weak.
If the argument in favor of gun control is that the availability of guns leads to higher violent crime, it is an excellent comparison.
Put that narrowly, then sure.
Weāll have to disagree then.then it is not a very good comparison at all
Every discussion of the 2nd amendment should include the entire text.
I should add that I agree with you on the fact that it is not as simple as looking at the number of guns and predicting the rate of crime. Unfortunately, that is what many wish to boil it down to and the only way to combat that perception is to meet them on their own ground from an argument standpoint. My personal take is that the two have very little to do with each other and I believe I have solid evidence to back that belief up with.